John Gladish
April 23, 2001
Marge Kolar
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
POB 524
Newark, CA 94560
Freemont, CA
Re: Baylands Refuge
for Canalways
After reading my letter, in addition to answering the questions I raise, please answer this most important question for a father of four.
After giving 84% of the county to the animals and birds, where are our teachers, policeman, firemen, librarians, cooks, doctors, lawyers, and children going to find housing? When is enough enough?
I would appreciate an answer to this question from those I copy in this letter – particularly from those officials who express concerns about housing.
Dear Ms. Kolar:
I am one of the owners of the 85 acres Canalways property that you are proposing to include in the Baylands Mapping Boundary. I am also a strong proponent of environmental enhancements that benefit the community. My vision for the Canalways property is to create working wetlands on a significant portion of the presently degraded site enhanced for the benefit of birds and animals and the remainder to be developed into housing, a school, playing fields, etc. for that often overlooked species – homo sapiens.
Our site is bordered by housing, commercial and retail on three sides. Feral dogs and cats patrol the land looking for any birds that they can catch. The only bird that might consider our land to raise his brood is the Dodo and they aren’t found in Marin anymore. Our property being so surrounded can in no way represent a pristine piece of land far from the crowds and hungry animals. Our piece is a perfect stopover. If done correctly, it will be like a nice gas station on the birds flyway. Land, rest up, catch some food and hit the skyway before the local cats, dogs and other hungry predators take notice.
My four children love that fact that Marin County is over 80% greenbelt but they also are concerned that with over 80% of the land given to the birds already where do the bird people propose for them and their friends to live? What other place in this galaxy has already given over 80% of their land to the birds and animals and still has a constituency crying for more.
As Churchill once said there is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies. I think we’ve done a great job for the environment – let’s get back to caring for our children.
By living for over 30 years in Marin I have come to learn that the leaders of many groups who proclaim environmental ideas and carry political power have a shortsighted view of how the natural environment must mesh with the people environment. You might want to refer to the 1973 Marin General Plan. At that time many of these development issues were decided. The environmentalists agreed with other decision makers that development should happen along the 101 Corridor leaving West Marin rural. Our site, being bordered on three sides by development, represents the infill project environmentalists were envisioning. That was and is today a keystone of the Marin County General Plan. If the environmentalists want to change that agreement are they now suggesting parts of West Marin should be developed? What is the quid pro quo?
As an environmentalist who also cherishes the rights and responsibilities inherent in being a private property owner, I tell you I do not want the Canalways property, of which I am an owner, placed into the Baylands Mapping Boundary.
Thanks for your time and consideration. I look forward to your reply. Good luck in all your valuable work.
.
Sincerely,
John Gladish
John Gladish
CC:
Mel Martinez,U.S. Dept of HUD
Julie Bornstein, Cal. Dept. of Housing
Bill Pavao, California Dept.of Housing
Mike Spear, Regional Director USFW
Dan Ashe, U. S.FWS Refuge Director
Congresswoman Woolsey
Senator Boxer
Senator Feinstein
Marin Board of Supervisors
Bay Planning Coalition
San Rafael Planning Department
Assemblyman Joe Nation
Kerner Partners
Novato City Council